Well, somehow some puckish folks got this question to percolate to the top on change.gov:

Quote :

"Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton"

The answer?

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/open_for_questions_response/

Quote :

"A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."

Not even any room for discussion, there.

Now that's "change" I can believe in!

Bonus: the civil liberties follow-up:

Quote :

"Q: "What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?" Kari, Seattle A: President-elect Obama is deeply committed to restoring the rule of law and respecting constitutional checks and balances.That is why he has pledged to review Bush Administration executive orders. President-elect Obama will also end the abuse of signing statements, and put an end to the politicization that has taken place within the Department of Justice and return that agency to its historic and apolitical mission of fair and impartial administration of justice."

Note nothing about actually rolling back intrusions into civil liberties.

Whatever, though. Hope! Change!

12/16/2008 4:39:19 PM

I don't know why all these dumbass pot smoking hippies don't just get on a boat and float away to Amsterdam. I mean damn. if you don't like it GET THE FUCK OUT!

12/16/2008 4:41:28 PM

Would have completely expected such a response to the first one... he'd lose too much credibility in the political world if he were to support legalization of marijuana, regardless of whether or not it's the right thing to do. I'd like to see the response to a question on purely medical applications of marijuana, though... I'd hope/expect a more open response, at the very least.

The second one? I'm disappointed, but not really surprised. What annoys me most is that it acts like the Bush administration is the only presidency to have tried curtailing civil liberties. Fucking partisan bullshit right there.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 4:43:28 PM

^^
lol, right...


But yeah, Obama is supposedly in favor of medical marijuana, or at least ending the federal ban...
...or so I heard

12/16/2008 4:44:18 PM

Obama has only been president for -35 days, I don't know why you are expecting more detailed answers, particularly ones that accuse the sitting president of steam rolling civil liberties.

Just even saying he's going to review the executive orders is a big enough step, that implicitly means re-expanding civil liberties.

12/16/2008 4:48:07 PM

Apparently, Obama can spare more than one sentence saying "hell no" for a plethora of other subjects.

But let's all pretend that change is juuuuuust around the bend.

It'll be a fun four years.

12/16/2008 4:50:41 PM

Quote :

"I mean damn. if you don't like it GET THE FUCK OUT!"

is that the way a democracy works?

anyways i think this is the last thing on obama's mind at this point, he's going to make a lot of changes but he cant piss off the right too much or in 4 years we'll have republican dominated governement

12/16/2008 4:51:14 PM

Ahaha - you're blaming the right for this one, now? When his veep is one of the biggest drug warriors / civil liberties shredders on the "D" side of the aisle?

Okay, man. Whatever keeps you sane.

12/16/2008 4:53:41 PM

lol because when obama talked about change, i DEFINITELY thought he was reffering(lol see what i did there) to marijuana

12/16/2008 4:56:14 PM

^^^^Can I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it?

Or at least let me know when this economic downturn will end.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 4:56:16 PM

Oh, so okay. He's just too busy. I gotcha.

A boot to the throat doesn't matter as long as it's a Democrat wearing the boot.

Keep Hope Alive!

12/16/2008 4:58:21 PM

yeah, he is kinda busy.
Why. The. Fuck. would he put leagalizing a drug on the top of his list?

12/16/2008 5:00:51 PM

Wow. It's like you guys are completely unable to read.

Let's try this again.

Some folks managed to get this question up-rated to the top of the forum. And his answer to it is, "Hell no, it won't happen." Not even an explanation.

And all you hacks can say is, "Well he's just too busy." Then, when confronted with a dodge on civil liberties better than Bush confronted with an shoe-throwing reporter, he's just too busy.

Christ, you people are topping the right-wingers right now.

But hey, maybe all those people doing time for marijuana will understand, right? Or maybe you can be so kind as to bump this thread whenever you hippies even get the inkling of complaining about drug laws.

Like I said, this will be a fun four years. He's not even in office and you people are ready to shill on command.

12/16/2008 5:05:09 PM

lol "not even an explanation"

dude its self explanatory

12/16/2008 5:06:02 PM

Try us, then. If it's so self-explanatory, then do entertain us with your explanation.

12/16/2008 5:07:27 PM

^^^ haha, do you need an explanation about why a president won't legalize marijuana?

haha I may be mixing you up with another poster, but when did you get so batshit crazy? or is this a drunk post thread?

In any case, not saying much is better than saying too much, because it gives him room to change gears later on.

12/16/2008 5:08:59 PM

what do you need explained exactly? theres only one president at a time lol

^lol seriously

Quote :

"haha, do you need an explanation about why a president won't legalize marijuana?"

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 5:09:23 PM

this will be a gradual process, years in the making

it will not happen over night

12/16/2008 5:11:10 PM

^^^No, I just find it telling that all you left-wingers would step over your own mother to defend this guy, despite alllll your complaining about this issue (not even getting into civil liberties) whenever it doesn't involve Obama.

Given the rather sizable contingent of people who likely comprise his supporters who seem to support legalization, and given that this question managed to get up-rated enough to make it to the very top of the queue, one might believe that more than a one-sentence answer would be in order. Given all that "change we can believe in" bullshit.

Oh wait, we can't believe in reforming crazy laws?

Quote :

"In any case, not saying much is better than saying too much, because it gives him room to change gears later on."

So this must be the "Hope!" we keep hearing about. The kind of hope that triumphs over experience.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 5:12:32 PM

Now that he's "The Man".. perhaps Obama doesn't have as much problem anymore with stripping away individual rights.

12/16/2008 5:18:57 PM

Quote :

"Oh wait, we can't believe in reforming crazy laws?"

The TKE poster is right for once... legalization is going to be a gradual process if it happens, given the apprehensions of a large portion of society. If whoever mentioned it is correct, and Obama is in support of legalizing medical marijuana, or at least removing the federal bans on it, that's a natural first step towards complete legalization. Besides that, part of Obama's platform involved not wanting to alienate the people that didn't vote for him (many of whom are conservative christians who for some absurd reason would consider marijuana use to be immoral).

I'd definitely like to see a question about medical marijuana raised and answered on the site, though. If nothing else than for confirmation of his stance.

12/16/2008 5:19:42 PM

Quote :

"Just even saying he's going to review the executive orders is a big enough step, that implicitly means re-expanding civil liberties."

Did you really say that? "Hey, we're gonna look at these laws, ok? We aint gonna do shit about em, but we'll look at em. That's kind of like re-expanding civil liberties, right?"

12/16/2008 5:30:22 PM

Quote :

"No, I just find it telling that all you left-wingers would step over your own mother to defend this guy, despite alllll your complaining about this issue (not even getting into civil liberties) whenever it doesn't involve Obama. "

who's stepping over their mother to defend him?

The guy hasn't even officially taken office, and you're already bitching he's not doing anything. If anything, you're jumping over your mother ti complain about something that doesn't warrant complaint. Unless you think it's a bad thing he's even going to review the exec. orders.

The fact he even has a website for people to question him is a 9000 degree change from the Bush years already. The fact he is even talking about reviewing the executive orders, most of which involved exeutive branch secrecy, is also a pretty significant policy difference versus Bush. I'm confident we'll see plenty of re-expanding of civil rights after he takes office.

I somehow doubt Obama would veto a bill through congress decriminalizing marijuana, but this is a bit more technically complex issue than just rescinding executive orders.

12/16/2008 5:34:28 PM

^^ that statement echoes his campaigning, where he specifically has stated he's going to throw out ones that violate the constitution, with his AG.

12/16/2008 5:36:03 PM

Quote :

"Not even any room for discussion, there. Now that's "change" I can believe in!"

....


Ok, let me see if I have this right:

1) Obama promises to bring change to America as President of the US via (among other things) a reform of healthcare & education, a committed effort to get troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, and so on...

2) Obama wins the election.

3) Obama begins organizing his administration as the President-Elect

4) The President-Elect's website posts content which (A) indicates that Obama does not support legalizing marijuana, an issue his campaign never addressed to any significant degree, and (B) offers a very brief and somewhat vague explanation of how Obama's Administration will address constitutionally questionable practices by its predecessor, which is understandable b/c Obama plans to actually FOLLOW the constitution.

5) Therefore, Obama does not in fact represent change.


::processing::


Upon further review, DrSteveChaos is a fucking idiot.


[/thread]

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM. Reason : really]

12/16/2008 5:38:38 PM

Quote :

"Obama plans to actually FOLLOW the constitution"

uhhhhh

yeah.

12/16/2008 5:51:30 PM

i know, right? I can't even remember the last time the Democrats followed the Constitution. Or the Republicans, for that matter

12/16/2008 5:59:08 PM

Quote :

"Upon further review, DrSteveChaos is a fucking idiot."

An excellent rejoinder, on par with what one should expect from an Obama supporter. Bravo.

12/16/2008 6:11:52 PM

Quote :

"who's stepping over their mother to defend him?"

Remind me, which of us is going out of their way to make excuses for the guy? Oh right, you are.

Quote :

"The guy hasn't even officially taken office, and you're already bitching he's not doing anything. If anything, you're jumping over your mother ti complain about something that doesn't warrant complaint. Unless you think it's a bad thing he's even going to review the exec. orders."

I'm pointing out that he's hedging on the whole "change" thing already. Which is unsurprising to anyone who say, actually has been paying attention this whole time. But oh boy some of his supporters are going to be in for a world of surprise when political reality hits.

Quote :

"The fact he even has a website for people to question him is a 9000 degree change from the Bush years already. The fact he is even talking about reviewing the executive orders, most of which involved exeutive branch secrecy, is also a pretty significant policy difference versus Bush. I'm confident we'll see plenty of re-expanding of civil rights after he takes office."

Talking about it and offering us nothing. Votes for FISA, renewing PATRIOT, etc. Picks one of the worst Democrats on civil liberties and the War on Drugs as his Veep, and yet we're going to see "a significant re-expanding of civil rights after he takes office."

Also heard - "The check's in the mail," "Of course I'll respect you in the morning," and "Mission Accomplished."

Quote :

"I somehow doubt Obama would veto a bill through congress decriminalizing marijuana, but this is a bit more technically complex issue than just rescinding executive orders."

Oh really? So when then the unequivocal "no?" Not even a hedge here, just a "no."

This really is interesting, here. Lefties like you guys bitch and piss and moan with the best of them over these issues, but when it's your guy in office, you can't make excuses for him fast enough as to why it won't matter that not only will he not do anything on the issue, but that in the case of reforming drug laws, he actively opposes doing anything. Not even a qualification on that one.

So please, do entertain me some more as to why these issues only matter when it's Team Red in office.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 6:19:17 PM

noone cares about your goddamn pot habit right now

we've got an economy to fix

12/16/2008 6:25:36 PM

Whatever, hippie douche. I don't even smoke weed, I just like to smoke out hypocrisy.

I think I'll ask theDuke866 to bump this thread whenever you assholes decide to complain about civil liberties or the War on Drugs. Or partisan right-wing hacks.

Like I said, this is going to be a fun four years.

12/16/2008 6:28:08 PM

i live in a state that recently decriminalized weed up to an ounce, so i'm getting a kick out of these replies

/just kidding, i didn't read them

12/16/2008 6:42:23 PM

NEWS FLASH

OBAMA NEVER, EVER EVEN SUGGESTED HE WAS GOING TO "LEGALIZE MARIJUANA". HE NEVER DID.

obviously you've got a raging hardon for everything Obama, DR. STEVE.

sorry its become so personal for you.



and by the way, dipshit, "Legalization" and "Medical Marijuana" are TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE ISSUES. I'm just sayin' because i know you're loading up some red herrings.

12/16/2008 8:21:24 PM

you know how some teams/groups say "you guys can have him [back] because we sure don't want him"

i'm fairly certain that's how people associated with DrSteveChaos feel

12/16/2008 8:34:28 PM

during the primary Obama clearly stated he was NOT in favor of drug legalization, but emphasizing that he was inclined to support Medical Marijuana.

while on the other hand,

Dr.Steve has abundantly and consistently demonstrated that he's a complete choad.

12/16/2008 8:43:53 PM

Last I checked, "civil liberties" and "the war on drugs" were also two separate issues. But oh well, thanks for playing.

Stay classy, Obamaphiles - I just know things are going to be so much different when you act exactly like Bush supporters. You know, liberal with the insults and short on arguments.

12/16/2008 10:11:38 PM

thanks for the red herrings.

you never fail to disappoint.

12/16/2008 11:12:35 PM

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

...but thanks for playing.

12/16/2008 11:15:53 PM

Quote :

"You know, liberal with the insults and short on arguments."

Because "OMG Obama's not going to legalize pot" and "OMG Obama didn't explicitly call Bush a freedom-hating Nazi" are quality arguments.

12/16/2008 11:25:09 PM

I know, I know, reading words and actually getting meaning from them is hard. Ask joe_schmoe if you don't believe me.

Especially when the pertinent issue is, "Uh, hey, Obama's really, really hedging on civil liberties when confronted directly and doesn't seem to want to promise squat aside from 'reviewing' some executive orders." And, you know, the fact that he unequivocally takes drug reform off the table with zero qualification or even explanation. Which is totally irrelevant to a set of people who have spent the last eight fucking years bitching about these things.

What terrible arguments! And how difficult they are to understand!

12/16/2008 11:31:03 PM

^ are you new to politics?

the statement "Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana" in no way completely takes it off the table because "legalization of marijuana" is a relatively vague term, especially when there is no real context to the statement. All that says is that he's not going to push for it, which is perfectly understandable. He's obviously thinking about 2012.

Quote :

"Which is totally irrelevant to a set of people who have spent the last eight fucking years bitching about these things."

LOL. Who has spent 8 years bitching that Bush doesn't want to legalize marijuana? haha

And his statement on undoing Bush's damage shows a strong direction, and reinforces what he said during the campaigns. Or did you expect his team to review the orders immediately and post them on the website now?

Sheesh... you sound like a high schooler that just learned about libertarianism.

12/16/2008 11:40:42 PM

dude if our policy on cuba isnt changed in 5 milliseconds i'm gonna be mad

12/16/2008 11:48:32 PM

Quote :

"are you new to politics?"

Are you new to literacy? I mean, this is the stupid question game, right?

Quote :

"the statement "Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana" in no way completely takes it off the table because "legalization of marijuana" is a relatively vague term, especially when there is no real context to the statement."

Uh, seems pretty unambiguous to me. And the context is provided for you - both in the full quote and a link to Obama's own site. I fail to see how you could be provided with more context. What instead you are giving us is a whole lot of wishful thinking.

Quote :

"All that says is that he's not going to push for it, which is perfectly understandable. He's obviously thinking about 2012."

No, I'm pretty sure it's going a little further than that. "Not in favor of" generally means "opposes" in the common parlance. Again, hope triumphing over experience, or what?

Quote :

"LOL. Who has spent 8 years bitching that Bush doesn't want to legalize marijuana? haha"

Dude, for serious - does the conjunctive "and" somehow escape you? You know, the "and" civil liberties part? Or shit, how about we pull up the plenty of threads bitching about the War on Drugs? Or does that just not matter now that Obama's taking office?

Really, riddle me this - do civil liberties no longer matter when Team Blue is in charge? Is the War on Drugs suddenly sensible policy now that Bush is out the door? I'd genuinely like to know, here, because that sure seems to be the message I'm hearing from your ilk.

Quote :

"And his statement on undoing Bush's damage shows a strong direction, and reinforces what he said during the campaigns. Or did you expect his team to review the orders immediately and post them on the website now?"

Actually, the damage he's done has been hardly contained in executive orders - in fact, those seem like some of the least of our problems. We've got PATRIOT, warrantless wiretaps, etc. And all we're promised is that he'll look real hard at a few executive orders? That's strong direction to you?

No wonder civil liberties are in the toilet - this is what suffices for "strong opposition."

Quote :

"Sheesh... you sound like a high schooler that just learned about libertarianism."

And you're living up to your username. Again.

Carry on.

12/16/2008 11:51:12 PM

I've supported the war on drugs throughout the bush administration. If he were to legalize it on the national level it would still not do anything to state laws.

decriminalization is what you idiots need to be looking at.

12/17/2008 12:02:55 AM

...what?

12/17/2008 12:05:01 AM

^^^ you know, there's not really much he can do before he becomes president, espcially given that the current President still has one month to implement whatever secret measures he wants.

At this point,when his transition team is working closing with the Bush Admin, it really won't do him any good, politically, to just flat out say "i'm going to unto this and this and this and this that Bush has done, and by the way, i'm going to meet Pres Bush tomorrow and I think we'll have a good chat"

give the guy a chance, once he gets some actual power.

[Edited on December 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2008 12:07:27 AM

Quote :

"Uh, seems pretty unambiguous to me. And the context is provided for you - both in the full quote and a link to Obama's own site. I fail to see how you could be provided with more context. What instead you are giving us is a whole lot of wishful thinking. "

There's no real context to the statement on the original page, is what I meant. As you accurately noted in your first post, he doesn't qualify it, which leaves it fairly ambiguous. Really though, it doesn't bother me if you get angry thinking about how much Obama hates marijuana. It's not really consequential.

Quote :

"Dude, for serious - does the conjunctive "and" somehow escape you? You know, the "and" civil liberties part? Or shit, how about we pull up the plenty of threads bitching about the War on Drugs? Or does that just not matter now that Obama's taking office?"

Look if you want to retract your statement that people have been bitching about Bush and marijuana for 8 years, just do it. Don't be a pussy and make a weak attempt at backpedalling.

Quote :

"Really, riddle me this - do civil liberties no longer matter when Team Blue is in charge? Is the War on Drugs suddenly sensible policy now that Bush is out the door? I'd genuinely like to know, here, because that sure seems to be the message I'm hearing from your ilk. "

Who is remotely saying that civil liberties don't matter, or the war on drugs as it is, is good policy? Obama isn't even saying this.

Quote :

"Actually, the damage he's done has been hardly contained in executive orders - in fact, those seem like some of the least of our problems. We've got PATRIOT, warrantless wiretaps, etc. And all we're promised is that he'll look real hard at a few executive orders? That's strong direction to you? "

umm... the warrantless wiretapping IS an executive order issue. The PATRIOT act is primarily a congressional issue, but revoking warrantless wire tapping is going to set the tone nicely for congress to make proper amendments to the patriot act.

What exactly do you want Obama to do here? Why don't you ask him yourself, on the website he put up for people to ask him questions?

[Edited on December 17, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

12/17/2008 12:11:47 AM

Quote :

"There's no real context to the statement on the original page, is what I meant. As you accurately noted in your first post, he doesn't qualify it, which leaves it fairly ambiguous. Really though, it doesn't bother me if you get angry thinking about how much Obama hates marijuana. It's not really consequential."

Tell that to the folks in prison. I'm sure they find it perfectly inconsequential as well. (Oh now - where is that famed bleeding heart compassion now?)

Quote :

"Look if you want to retract your statement that people have been bitching about Bush and marijuana for 8 years, just do it. Don't be a pussy and make a weak attempt at backpedalling."

Are you fucking serious? You're the one who can't read, and I'm backpedaling? Jesus Christ, just admit that you don't get it.

Quote :

"Who is remotely saying that civil liberties don't matter, or the war on drugs as it is, is good policy? Obama isn't even saying this."

The latter certainly doesn't seem to bother you much when it's your boy, so how much can it really matter? It's the standard theater - hem and haw when the subject comes up in isolation, then act like it's academic and without consequence when it comes up in the context of one of your guys. And it's suddenly a mystery why nothing changes.

Seriously though, he doesn't agree with changing marijuana policy, what exactly is this aside from a tacit endorsement of the status quo? And what exactly is yours and others' dismissal of this issue supposed to indicate, exactly? Everything seems peachy-keen with the status quo, so long as Team Blue runs the show.

And as far as civil liberties goes, he gives a lukewarm, non-committal statement in favor of "reviewing" executive orders - not even any commitment to actually say, repeal any unspecified overreaches - just to "review them." No comment at all upon legislative overreaches. And this is supposed to warm the cockles of our hearts?

Seriously, one can find dozens of examples of abuses of our civil liberties. This guy can't even pull one out of his magic hat?

Quote :

"umm... the warrantless wiretapping IS an executive order issue. The PATRIOT act is primarily a congressional issue, but revoking warrantless wire tapping is going to set the tone nicely for congress to make proper amendments to the patriot act."

And I'm sure the guy who caved on retroactive immunity for telecoms who broke the law in doing this will be the guy who spearheads this, right? Maybe his VP, who wrote a precursor to PATRIOT, will make the nudge. But about the tone to making amendments to the PATRIOT Act - I wonder, assuming this was even on the horizon for him, if it was ever possible? Do you suppose it was ever even remotely in his power when he was, I don't know, a Senator? When it came up for renewal?

Nah.

Quote :

"What exactly do you want Obama to do here? Why don't you ask him yourself, on the website he put up for people to ask him questions?"

I'd sure like him to actually act like some of these issues were serious, for one. Blithely dismissing all possibility of drug law reform and giving token noises in favor of "reviewing" some executive orders doesn't exactly cut it.

12/17/2008 12:27:35 AM

Quote :

""A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.""

=/=

Quote :

"Blithely dismissing all possibility of drug law reform"

12/17/2008 1:01:13 AM

As was noted earlier, Obama isn't president yet.

Besides, I don't recall there being great outrage over the Bush administration supporting the drug war; how often has there been commentary regarding increased military spending in Colombia?

12/17/2008 3:58:58 AM